hashcat Forum

I'm trying the brute force method and followed the guideline on the wiki.

I keep getting an error about integer overflow and then it stops running. I've tried changing the minimum to 10 and maximum to 16, then I've set the mask to the same number as the max number and still get the same error.  

My understanding is that the ?a represents upper/lower/numbers/characters and that this mask string has to be at least as long as the password. I don't know the exact length of the password, but I know it's not more than 18 characters.

I also don't think I can use my gpu, all I have is a laptop, dual core i7, but I don't know why this keeps coming up. 

C:\hashcat-3.40>hashcat64.exe -a 3 -m 11600 --increment-min 11 --increment-max 18 c:\users\techie\downloads\hashcat-3.40\hash.txt -o c:\hashcat-3.40\cracked.txt ?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a

I'd imagine it's to do with the unfathomably large keyspace you're using - that mask tops out at 95^19 permutations!!!

As an FYI, using the 1080Ti benchmark epixoip posted a couple of days ago would take a 1080Ti approximately 6502147701243443 times the age of the Universe (13.8 billions years) to exhaust.

And you don't even have one. Best of luck though.

Keyspace is stored in a uint64 so the maximum value it can hold is 2^64 - 1. Your keyspace is 2^72.26 .. 2^118.25, so yes, integer overflow.

And yes, as rico identified, this keyspace is impossibly large. You will never brute force keyspaces that large, not even using all the computers that have ever existed.

Thank you, I followed some examples online.

Can anyone assist with how to specify the min and max pwd length and specify the character set as upper/lower/numbers/symbols?

The wiki page stated that the min and max are optional which makes sense, but then it also stated the mask length had to be set. In the example provided it showed the same syntax that I used, but it had a min of 4 and max of 6, then the mask was set to 8 and it had ?a entered 8 times which I thought was the mask length.

So you're saying you've solved the "near-infinite hardware required" problem?